Talk:Antinomian Controversy

Two dissenters, or three?
The text describing Anne Hutchinson's trial right now asserts that "When a vote was taken on a sentence of banishment, only the two deputies from Boston, Colburn and Coddington, dissented." But our article on John Coggeshall asserts that he is one of three dissenting votes -- that fact is cited there, and I've seen the same claim made in a family history of the Coggeshall family (behind a paywall at Ancestry.com). Do we have any reason to think that Coggeshall wasn't a dissenting vote? Or was his vote accidentally left out of our account? Given how well-documented this article is in general, I'm happy to hold off until I can get a second opinion from someone better equipped than I am to know the ins and outs of this. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello; as I recall this quote was taken right out of one of Winship's accounts. My gut feeling is that Coggeshall may have already been removed from the ability to vote, leaving Boston with only two voting members.  However, when I have a moment, I'll go back and re-read the details and give you a more succinct reply.Sarnold17 (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the material cited was from Battis, but I just did a quick reading of Winship, and both Coggeshall and Aspinwall had been previously dismissed from the court (Winship, 2002, p 169), and Boston had to vote with only two of its deputies. In fact, Coggeshall had been considered for banishment before Hutchinson stood trial.  There are many details from Winship that I plan to incorporate into the Coggeshall article in the future.Sarnold17 (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * After a few more minutes with the situation, I see that the Coggeshall article cites Bicknell (1920) on the subject, and this appears to be out of date with more modern scholarship on the subject. I will need to go back sooner, than later, and bring the Coggeshall article somewhat up to date.Sarnold17 (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Opacity
The lede is almost 600 words long yet manages to say absolutely nothing about the actual controversy. It uses the term ″free grace″ repeatedly without ever defining it or even linking to the free grace article. It also uses the terms covenant of works and covenant of grace without defining them, although it does link to the relevant articles. The rest of the 12,000-word article is not much better: the only two sections that look like they might provide some insight into the controversy (Background and Beliefs) both seem to assume that the reader is already familiar with the subject. DES (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So fix it. Esrever (klaT) 00:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  I have no fricking clue what the article is about  So fix it  Logic is not your strong suit, is it? DES (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Came to this talk page after being confronted with the same thing --85.151.204.175 (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The Antinomian Controvery (a few people call it the "Free Grace Controversy") is not about Free Grace Theology
I figured I'd add this to the talk page in case this comes up again in the future. The "free grace" motto of this controversy is NOT the "free grace" of Free Grace Theology.

"Free grace" in the antinomian controversy is the contention that the moral should should not be *imposed* (i.e. by society) because Christians are freed from the law by the covenant of grace. Note carefully, antinomian 'free grace' does NOT imply that Christians will not inevitably do good works. Rather the contention is that good works cannot 'assure' one of salvation because God's predestined 'gift of grace' on that individual is what brings salvation. Consider the following from the Antinomianism article: However, a number of seventeenth-century English writers in the Reformed tradition held antinomian beliefs. None of these individuals argued that Christians would not obey the law. Instead, they believed that believers would spontaneously obey the law without external motivation. Antinomianism during this period is likely a reaction against Arminianism, as it emphasized free grace in salvation to the detriment of any participation on the part of the believer. [emphasis added] In contrast, the "Free Grace" in Free Grace Theology refers to the "free gift" of God's salvation ("grace"). The term "free" refers both to The term "grace" reinforces the first point and also refers to the contention that good works are not necessary (i.e. a condition of salvation: a view with which most protestants agree) or inevitable (a view with which Calvinists--think Puritans!--disagree) before, during, or after salvation (justification).
 * God not requiring payment for the gift
 * Freedom (free will) of humans to believe and thereby receive grace. (Note this is directly contrary to the assertion of no participation on the part of the believer as in Antinomian 'free grace').

In sum, Free Grace Theology is NOT historically linked to the antinomian free grace controversy. Please do not conflate the two just because the same term "free grace" is used (see false equivalence, equivocation). Readingwords (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Free Grace does not necessate a denial of fruit being inevitable, read Charles Ryrie (one of the most notable Free grace theologians), who said: "Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow. Otherwise that person is not a believer. Every born-again individual will be fruitful. Not to be fruitful is to be faithless, without faith, and therefore without salvation." --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to raise the dead here, but I thought I'd answer your reply. To my understanding, Ryrie is equivocating. What he means by inevitable good works is not what most Calvinisms (i.e. Puritans) mean by inevitable good works. "Somewhere, sometime, somehow" is a far cry from the lifestyle of good works that Calvinists and Puritans expect/require from all "true" Christians. Readingwords (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)